Wis. Lawmaker (R): Single Parenthood Is Child Abuse

[Daverino]

Take note, women:

If you use birth control, you're a slut.
If you have an abortion, you're a murder.
If you raise the child yourself, you're a child abuser.

 

[CitizenKain]

Take note, women:

If you use birth control, you're a slut.
If you have an abortion, you're a murder.
If you raise the child yourself, you're a child abuser.

If you complain about being called this, you're a feminazi.

 

[DrPizza]

The bolded part you quoted is false "to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children" (actual wording below). Reading comprehension problem or intentional hyperbole? You choose.

Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.
​

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. So, the title is little more than an exaggeration.

 

[cybrsage]

The bolded part you quoted is false "to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children" (actual wording below). Reading comprehension problem or intentional hyperbole? You choose.

Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.
​

The next, obvious, question is:

Is there a higher rate of child abuse and neglect for children raised in a nonmarital home than in a marital home?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The next, obvious, question is:

Is there a higher rate of child abuse and neglect for children raised in a nonmarital home than in a marital home?

Yes.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm

"Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

"A UNICEF report on child wellbeing[30] stated that the United States and the United Kingdom ranked lowest among industrial nations with respect to the wellbeing of children. It also found that child neglect and child abuse were far more common in single-parent families than in families where both parents are present."

 

[dainthomas]

The next, obvious, question is:

Is there a higher rate of child abuse and neglect for children raised in a nonmarital home than in a marital home?

And there's probably a higher rate of child abuse and neglect in poor homes than wealthy homes. Maybe we should pass a law encouraging people to be rich. It would be just as useful.

 

[nyker96]

I think certain people just got too much time on their hands.

 

[cybrsage]

And there's probably a higher rate of child abuse and neglect in poor homes than wealthy homes. Maybe we should pass a law encouraging people to be rich. It would be just as useful.

Irrelevant to this discussion. That would be a different law.

Just seeing if this bill represents a falsehood or not. The OP implied the lawmaker is an idiot. Apparently, he applied the label to the wrong person.

 

[ch33zw1z]

While the Senator may be well intentioned, what exactly does he think this will do? Guilt people into staying together? Should children be raised by parents who hate each other and provide a negative environment because it helps him feel better about the numbers he reviews in reports?

Good, bring more attention to it. Creating some law isn't going to help though. The word could be spread without this nonsense.

 

[rchiu]

While the Senator may be well intentioned, what exactly does he think this will do? Guilt people into staying together? Should children be raised by parents who hate each other and provide a negative environment because it helps him feel better about the numbers he reviews in reports?

Good, bring more attention to it. Creating some law isn't going to help though. The word could be spread without this nonsense.

He is only asking to get the facts out, I don't see any law in his proposal. Single parent family does have higher rate of child abuse and negligence. It's up to those people to feel guilty or take responsibility for their action...which is if you want to have sex and bring kids into this world, you should make the effort to make things work.

As for those who don't have a choice, like their SO passed away or things like that, why should they feel guilty when they don't have a choice. Those who will feel guilty (or should) are those people who actually have guilt on their conscience.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundatione.cfm

"Children living with single parents may be at higher risk of experiencing physical and sexual abuse and neglect than children living with two biological parents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

"A UNICEF report on child wellbeing[30] stated that the United States and the United Kingdom ranked lowest among industrial nations with respect to the wellbeing of children. It also found that child neglect and child abuse were far more common in single-parent families than in families where both parents are present."

It's a non sequitur to say that if those people had stayed married, there would be less child abuse.

 

[ch33zw1z]

He is only asking to get the facts out, I don't see any law in his proposal. Single parent family does have higher rate of child abuse and negligence. It's up to those people to feel guilty or take responsibility for their action...which is if you want to have sex and bring kids into this world, you should make the effort to make things work.

As for those who don't have a choice, like their SO passed away or things like that, why should they feel guilty when they don't have a choice. Those who will feel guilty (or should) are those people who actually have guilt on their conscience.

And those who are irresponsible aren't going to give a shit about this public awareness message anyways. Sounds like a lose/lose. Spend more money, no return. Guess he's not a (R) who's interested in smaller government.

 

[zsdersw]

We don't have a lack of information on this or, really, any other issue... only a lack of desire to seek and use it effectively.

What Grothman and other social conservatives don't realize, though, is that government is not the best or, arguably, the most appropriate vehicle to address these problems.

 

[zsdersw]

Those of us as citizens who bother to notice the various problems our society experiences all see the same negative consequences. The difference is in what we do or think should be done about it.

If your first thought is to use government, somehow, to address a problem... you're a liberal, and you're an idiot.

If your first thought is to use something else and to turn to government only as a last resort, you're a conservative or a centrist, and you're smart.

Sometimes government itself causes a problem, in which case the remedy is to remove government from the situation. If you think changing the government's role/actions to address the problem is what's required, you're a liberal, and you're an idiot.

 

[Ausm]

Those of us as citizens who bother to notice the various problems our society experiences all see the same negative consequences. The difference is in what we do or think should be done about it.

If your first thought is to use government, somehow, to address a problem... you're a liberal, and you're an idiot.

If your first thought is to use something else and to turn to government only as a last resort, you're a conservative or a centrist, and you're smart.

Sometimes government itself causes a problem, in which case the remedy is to remove government from the situation. If you think changing the government's role/actions to address the problem is what's required, you're a liberal, and you're an idiot.

I think you just let the cat out of the bag on how you roll...and you consider yourself nonpartisan??? LMFAO You think I'm a shill....I think you better look in a mirror.

 

[shira]

I'm just guessing at the intent here...but it seems that this legislation was designed to protect children by increasing 'risk factor' awareness...not to demonize single family parents.

If this is truly the intent, then where are the equivalent "emphasizing" statements related to the other risk factors for child abuse? For example, family financial stress is strongly correlated with abuse (and, by the way, this is the actual "independent variable" underlying the reason that single-parent families have higher rates of child abuse). So it's even more important that anyone contemplating parenthood who is not 100% certain that their finances will be secure for the next 21 years should not have children. But, somehow, I doubt this legislator would ever want to include an "emphasizing" statement saying that having a smaller income is a risk factor.

I should also mention that children with cognitive and physical impairments are more likely to be abused. Which means that we need an "emphasizing" statement indicating that birth defects are a risk factor for child abuse. I'm sure this legislator would encourage prospective parents to obtain amniocenteses to detect defective fetuses at an early stage and then to abort any defective fetuses detected - the only responsible action in the war against child abuse.

 

[zsdersw]

I think you just let the cat out of the bag on how you roll...and you consider yourself nonpartisan??? LMFAO You think I'm a shill....I think you better look in a mirror.

Ideological != partisan.

You're a Democratic party shill. I'm ideologically libertarian.

 

[Ausm]

Ideological != partisan.

You're a Democratic party shill. I'm ideologically libertarian.

Ummm ok buddy whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Munky]

This bill has a point based on actual facts that single parents are more abusive. Having a disincentive for single parenthood would be a good start. The reason you lefties are so upset about this is because it will discourage women from continuing their practice of divorcing the husband and then financially raping him via child support and alimony. Heaven forbid she actually have to keep her vows instead of jumping ship when a juicier proposition shows up.

 

[Ausm]

This bill has a point based on actual facts that single parents are more abusive. Having a disincentive for single parenthood would be a good start. The reason you lefties are so upset about this is because it will discourage women from continuing their practice of divorcing the husband and then financially raping him via child support and alimony. Heaven forbid she actually have to keep her vows instead of jumping ship when a juicier proposition shows up.

Can you pass some of that shit you're smoking my way?

 

[zsdersw]

Ummm ok buddy whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

If you can't tell the difference between political parties and ideologies you're more stupid than I thought.

 

[Munky]

Can you pass some of that shit you're smoking my way?

2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women. Don't let the facts pop your delusional bubble.

 

[Ausm]

If you can't tell the difference between political parties and ideologies you're more stupid than I thought.

Now the onus is on you buddy....claiming political parties are not Ideological especially in this day and age.

 

[Ausm]

2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women. Don't let the facts pop your delusional bubble.

Oh please post the data on this I would love to see it....also You actually believe Draconian Legislation like this would improve the "Sanctity" of marriages? LMAO

 

[zsdersw]

Now the onus is on you buddy....claiming political parties are not Ideological especially in this day and age.

Nice try, but I never said political parties aren't ideological. I said political parties are different from ideologies.

For example, modern liberals find some things good about the Democratic party, and some bad things. Ditto for conservatives and the Republican party. When you shill for the Democratic party you're not necessarily being a shill for liberals.. and ditto for Republicans and conservatives.